gaard wrote:Which 169 positions have you removed from the original eg_msa.epd in the modified one?
Maybe I missed something... where do these positions come from? They are not in the epd file I posted. I do not have a record for a lot of the positions you posted.
gaard wrote:Is the CSV still good? I see I will have have to chop ~250 positions for evaluating too high. As far as the positions that are dead drawn, do you mean that they are equal or they will always result in a draw? How do I identify the latter?
Not sure about the csv either.
There are two problems with incorrect analysis attached.
I can redo the csv file later, after I am sure that all issues have been resolved.
The only positions I scrap based on evaluation are those over 1.2 pawns, or when the difference between the best move and the second best move is greater than .3. I keep positions with evaluations greater than -1.2 and less than 1.2 to maintain a representative sample.
Compared to general ratings, Houdini, Stockfish and Komodo overperform in the endgame, Rybka and Critter underperform. It seems that two complementary and good in endgame engines are Houdini and Stockfish.
Compared to general ratings, Houdini, Stockfish and Komodo overperform in the endgame, Rybka and Critter underperform. It seems that two complementary and good in endgame engines are Houdini and Stockfish.
Kai
I did a similar test comparing Robolitto and Komodo, and although you did not test Robolitto I came to the conclusion that Komodo has a better endgame than middlegame.
Don wrote:
I did a similar test comparing Robolitto and Komodo, and although you did not test Robolitto I came to the conclusion that Komodo has a better endgame than middlegame.
Don
Yes, confirmed here too, Komodo's endgame seems superior to its middlegame (compared to other engines). The results of Komodo in this suite are